As American nationalists we share several ideas with the libertarians and other constitutionalist conservatives, such as the right to private property, national independence and the support of free-market capitalism.

However there are some elements that differentiate nationalists from conservatives and libertarians, namely that nationalists see government as a means to an end and not as the end itself. Also, nationalists recognize the importance of nation and patriotism more so than libertarians and conservatives.

In the same vein as my post on candidate Gary Johnson, who is more of a demagogue than a true libertarian but whatever, here is a few major criticisms most nationalists agree with and that concern libertarians mostly, but also conservatives to a degree.

Many American citizens want a real change from the Republican and Democrat parties who offer the same solutions to the very problems they helped create. But a lot of these Americans don’t consider supporting the American Nationalist Party ( http://www.nationsiege.com ) because they see it as either “racist”, “fascist” or “intolerant”.

American Nationalism as portrayed by the media

Nothing is further from the truth, and if American Nationalism has a reputation of being an “intolerant movement” it owes it more to the left wing media propaganda than to the actual program of the party.

American Nationalism is first and foremost about protecting our sovereignty and national identity. The American nationalist refuses the totalitarian diktat of the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the European Union.

Essentially, American nationalism is about doing what is right for our country in all circumstances and independently of our differences and political ideologies.

This week we’ll introduce a new candidate, a forerunner who despite is late appearance has still many demagogic tools in his arsenal.

You know, the one that calls himself classical liberal but refuses to acknowledge the main principle of classical liberalism : the right of a civilization to govern itself.

While I have no doubt that Gary Johnson would be a perfectly good “liberal” candidate, as in left-wing socialist hippie, I have a hard time seeing him as a classical liberal of any form.

I don’t know what is a bigger spoliation than to refuse to a nation the right to govern itself.
I don’t know what is a bigger violation of private property than to allow invasions for foreign countries, and even encourage them (we are talking about the man who wants amnesty for all illegals).

It’s funny that when the US Army intervenes in Afghanistan or Syria, the globalist media is always whining about “invasions”, “unconstitutional wars”, and so forth. But they always fail to show the REAL invasion going on : illegal immigration.

But the global agenda will never allow a serious candidate for president of the United States, as their goal is that we become a mediocre country lacking our own culture, destroyed by 60 years of ethnomasochism, and being controlled and occupied by foreign interests.

I strongly criticize Gary Johnson’s views on immigration, but you would think that as a so-called “libertarian” he would at least have a decent economic program right ?

Bullshit, his economic plan is probably the weakest of any candidate (even behind Obama).

Abolish tariffs ? Seriously ? So how are you going to get any state income ? Tax labor ? capital gains ? VAT ?

How can you call yourself libertarian and want to tax labor ? As a matter of fact, how can you be in the twenty-first century and want to tax labor ?

He always brags about how he balanced the budget as governor (what more or less every republican governor has ever done), but it’s quite easy to do so if you’re going to tax capital, labor and consumption.

The real question to ask yourself is : what will be our economic situation in ten years, once every company will have moved offshore ?

High tariffs are an incentive for a company to move somewhere, as well as low labor/capital taxes. Gary Johnson wants the opposite for our country, the opposite of what has always worked, the opposite of what is working RIGHT NOW for the top exporters in the world and those who at least have a positive trade balance.

Will it work for the USA ? Has it ever worked for anyone who has applied it ? No.
Does it buy votes ? Does it seems serious to the uneducated masses ? Apparently.

I don’t know what’s the worst in all this : that an ignorant like Gary Johnson would become a presidential candidate, or that some people take him seriously.

It’s very funny to follow the official and orchestrated globalist media propaganda, not only funny because of the content they display but especially for the reactions to the politically orchestrated media campaigns.

You may have heard my criticize either the stimulus, Ron Paul or our current political decisions involving printing more money and selling or sovereignty to the foreign to pay for our trade deficit… that already benefits the foreign.

Now you may also have heard me state on diverse occasions that I find our current political situation very funny, and you may also have wondered why I allow myself to laugh at such things.
After all, millions of Americans losing their jobs and their homes to pay for foreign banks, foreign lobbies and foreign wars isn’t particularly sophisticated, courteous or refined.

Furthermore, the fact that these same millions of Americans seem to ask for more of the same policies that got them where they are today doesn’t seem very amusing either… at first.

About the FED and why the middle class is shooting itself in the foot

You see, I am a big advocate of personal responsibility and live by the guideline of what you seed you must harvest. Understand now why it annoys me subtly when some Americans decide not only to sell or sovereignty to the foreign, but then decide as a collectivized lobby to blame other Americans. Note that scapegoats are never foreign, as that would be intolerant.

That’s also a reason why I dislike the FED system, collectivist economic systems and socialism altogether, other than because they ruin our economic power and political freedom of course.

Yet these recent months it has been very interesting to notice the assemblies of middle class representatives, amongst various lobbies and politically engaged organizations, call for an “end to the FED”. Whether by FED they mean the “FED system” to which I refer or the actually Federal Reserve Bank I do not know.

But what I do know is that these representatives are not only biting the hand that feeds them, they are also shooting themselves in the foot (both feet actually).

What is funny in this situation, and what these Americans aren’t realizing, is that they are about to get a pretty good taste of what reality and individual responsibility look like, whether they like it or not. Probably not otherwise they wouldn’t have tried to escape these concepts in the first place.

Now all this masquerade of a dignified incompetence mixed with a tumultuous ignorance of even the basic economic concepts couldn’t have been possible without the undesired yet ostentatious participation of our eminent globalist leader : congressman Ron Paul.

Tip : Anytime the word “incompetence” is involved, think of Ron Paul.

It’s particularly ridiculous to see the same middle class that desperately whimpered and sobbed for a system designed to detach them from the reality of the financial market, now chanting openly for the abrogation of this system. Whether they realize or not (obviously not) is that they are about to taste the consequences of fifty years of reality denial.

I don’t know if Ron Paul really believes, as a good demagogue, that he can please as much people by repealing the FED system (if he’s even going to do so when elected) or if it’s just another electoral maneuver to rally the masses under a meaningless slogan.
Now I speak of Ron Paul because he is the only one that proposes to repeal this system, and I give him props for that (not too much though cause he’s still an idiot), but whether the middle class wants it or not (surprisingly they do), the FED system will have to end. Only the more Americans wait the harder they will get f*cked.

I really don’t know why those Americans, the ones that profited of the unrealistic and artificial monetary system not the hardworking patriots, would want it to end. They probably believe it will be the same as before, only they don’t have to pay taxes anymore (“yeeeeeah” stupid Californian-suburb accent).

Well unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of the economy, that won’t be the case.

The same way you don’t step out of fifty years of collective irresponsibility, international socialism and ethnomasochism without consequences, you don’t step out of an artificial monetary system the same way either.

What they don’t realize is that the FED is helping these OWS hippies to the expense of the workers, the bosses, the companies and every other wealth creator. They think that someone they’re going to fuck over the “banks” with that ? Don’t worry that banks know how to capitalize their assets whether the dollar goes up or down.

What the end of the FED system really means, is that Americans will no longer be dependent of the FED and the government, but the global economic system. And when we see how little these Americans know about it, we have good reasons to be scared. Or amused.

The end of the FED system will mark the end of artificially pumped jobs : workers will start to be remunerated not by government imposed standard but by market standards. In other words, how useful they are to the overall economy. There will be no more teaching applied art history in a public school for 5K/month. It will also be likely that we see many restructuring plans within American companies.

The end of the FED system will also mark the end of the buying stuff you can’t afford. Notably our record high trade deficit. The government is always bragging about how the continuous stimulus was designed to help the banks and the different industries. That couldn’t be farther from the truth seeing how fast the money we print ends up out of our borders. The government is actually doing more harm than good to these industries by allowing the FED system to pursue.

The end of the FED system will also mark the end of the American business model. The laws of supply = demand will finally be respected, and our trade balance will at least have to be brought up to equilibrium.

Americans will have to stop relying on governmental intervention, stimulus, borrowed money, printed money, taxed money, artificial monetary systems and start producing their own goods. The globalist system will have to be progressively revoked since incompatible with economic reality.

Americans will have to adapt or die. And currently seeing how most hippies are only concerned with gay rights, peace, marijuana decriminalization, tolerance or ecology, it will be very funny trying to see them adapt to a new system, completely incompatible with the globalist propaganda they were encourage to plebiscite : economic reality.

What is really quite amusing is that for once, there will be no scrapegoats. The middle class will be hit hard (and repeatedly) with the very own rod they’ve been building for fifty years, fifty years of foreign dependance, de-localization of our production facilities, collective irresponsibility and ethnomasochism. There will be no excuses this time, economic reality doesn’t allow excuses anyway. No banks to blame, no government to accuse, no rich class to denounce.

I have but one recommendation for these Americans : nationalism.

Nationalism is the only constant in the factors that contributes to a successful nation. Some are more or less liberal, more or less governmental dependent, more or less socialist ; some have devalued currencies, some have healthcare, but the one constant is that they are nationalist.

Ron Paul is no better than Obama really, they’re both two politicians disconnected from the reality of the market, both of them promoting a dead ideology. The only props Ron Paul can have are for his minimal economic experience and the fact that he hasn’t been elected yet, so there’s not much to hold against him.

But don’t be fooled, there’s a reason why Ron Paul is so popular amongst our enemies : he is a demagogue, an internationalist and a delusional moralist. He always bases his judgement on how things should or should not be, never on what they are. He presents free trade and free market as the new magic pill, yet no successful country has really applied any part of his program.
The real successful countries, notably those who have a very high positive trade balance, are usually those who have strong governmental regulations to protect their market. And they are all nationalists, that’s what allows them to lend us their money. Which is actually our money they retrieved from their trade surplus.

American nationalists don’t believe in socialism and regulation, no more than they believe in free trade globalist delusions.

It’s funny to note how both the communist and the new wave of pro-European globalist share very similar views on most subjects. For instance, they both follow blindly the work of so-called economists that had very little real market experience (Marx for the Red, Hayek, Bastiat, Von Mises for the Blue). They’re also both eager to openly designate scrapegoats, the “invisible enemy” against whom we must all unite for the “greater good” even beyond American interests. And finally, they’re both also eager declare themselves outsiders, anti-system or anti-establishment.

Recently in our political debates, many conservative candidates have expressed views about a more open market, a free market if you will. Now free market doesn’t have to mean mere submission to the globalization of our economies as Ron Paul suggests, some markets can be very restricted yet very open to globalization (or even globalism) as California shows us.

Free market means a more open economy inside our borders, less governmental restrictions on businesses and business creation. Now as favorable as I am to this idea, our politicians and other leaders have now managed to turn what was once a genuinely good idea to a new masquerade of demagogy.

Politicians, and especially Ron Paul, seem not only to see free market as the new magic pill, but even as the only economic proposition. Free market is neither the new magic pill, there shouldn’t be any magic pills, neither should it be the only proposition of any decent candidate.

He seems to think that by allowing free market all the problems we face will be solved… well first of all that would imply that all are problems are economic, not political or ideological for example.

And secondly, where are all the other top free market countries in the world ? Once again, Ron Paul and the other liberal suckers are very good at scaffolding demagogic speeches, but as always they don’t translate in reality.

The two biggest exporters in the world, China and Germany, are also those who have some of the least free markets. The United States actually aren’t bad at all in terms of free market, ranking 6th on the 2011 economic freedom index. Germany is 25th and China 132th. Yet, we have the worst trade balance in the world, ranking 198th on… 198 countries. Note that the difference between the USA’s trade balance and the 197th is bigger than the difference between the 1rst and the 197th. If you have any experienced in statistics, you shall notice how fucked up that is.

But don’t forget that trade deficit is only the tip of the iceberg, the real consequences lie behind it : printing, taxing or borrowing money, reliance on foreign investments…

The top five countries with the best trade balance also have the least free markets : China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, Russia (source: CIA world factbook).

Not only that, but most of the successful countries also have a lot of governmental involvement : over 50% of GDP for France, Belgium, Denmark, Russia. How can Ron Paul still advocate free market as the ultimate solution, the magic pill ?

Sure free market is beneficial, I’m not saying otherwise. But it all comes down to supply and demand, and there’s a very (very) simple equation that both Ron Paul and Marx seem to ignore : supply = demand. No more, no less.

How can there be a supply when all our goods or produced by foreigners in foreign countries ? How can there be a demand when our economy, like our politicians, is completely disconnected from the reality of the market by countless stimulus plans that involve printing, borrowing or relying on foreign investments ?

Free market and economic liberty are both stimulating factors for an economy, but under no condition should they be considered as “magic pills”. If the candidates believed in real liberalism (individual responsibility), they’d drop the magic pill speech altogether and leave that for Obama. But the truth is that neither Ron Paul nor any other candidate is any better than Obama to answer our current economic issue. As a matter of fact, most of our politicians don’t even want to answer them.

Many of the mass media operatives and anti-American propagandists are once more desperately trying to bring Ron Paul back into the public debate and the media eye, somehow by alleging him as the new liberal “revolution” and anti-establishment candidate.

Passing on the fact that he is as anti-establishment as Arthur Ruppin was anti-Zionist and that most of his proposals are just rehearsals of previous internationalist and globalist political beliefs coupled with even more ethnomasochism, there is at least some truth to the media propaganda for once : Ron Paul is liberal. Liberal as in real liberal, not left-wing progressive. I intentionally avoid the label classical liberal.

Now if the media for once got their facts right, they are of course completely wrong in their analysis of these facts.

Many representatives will say that Ron Paul popularized, or re-popularized, liberalism. Some will even go so far as to say that Ron Paul is popular because of his liberal views.

But I assure you, if Ron Paul manages to combine popularity in the globalist media and liberal views, there is no causality involved at all. I would go so far as to say that not only Ron Paul is not popular because of his liberal views, but rather popular despite his liberal inclinations.

Notice that those that support Ron Paul, that is to say every internationalist media to an extend, doesn’t do so because Ron Paul opposes public spending, governmental regulations and Keynesianism, but rather because he is seen as an objector to what they call “American imperialism”.

Ron Paul isn’t that much more economically liberal than Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan, but the reason he gets support from the anti-American media is simply because he has a very globalist and demagogic message : peace.

Furthermore, Ron Paul also has support for opposing the government, which is the new scapegoat of 2012. And by opposing I mean deluding himself and blaming everything on. But what he forgets is that liberalism isn’t particularly anti-government at all.

Liberalism doesn’t have to mean a limited government, rather an efficient government.

The media are dead wrong to believe that liberalism has rejuvenated. Liberalism means individual responsibility, and ethnomasochism is far from individual responsibility.
The more the American people strive for globalism, foreignism and anti-Americanism, the more they will be drawn to socialism regardless. If liberalism is a little more popular now than it used to be, it’s simply the result of the Bush/Obama fiasco.

But don’t delude yourself into believing that liberalism is back on the political agenda and that the United States citizens will suddenly change their political and ideological views. Nowadays Americans, if we can even call them Americans, are far too attached to the socialist values that gave birth to internationalism and ethnomasochism in the first place : collective irresponsibility, group think and sheep mentality.

Just when you thought that the so-called liberals and their supporters ought to shut up, here they are trying to get attention and occupy wall street the media scene with the same old joke : the 9/11 conspiracy.

One could wonder why this event, which happened over ten years ago, still holds such an importance as of today but regardless.

It seems like the ethnomasochist wave generally accompanying Ron Paul’s campaigns has payed off and carried on to other candidates.

But seriously now, we really are lucky to have such insightful people to govern us.

C’mon of course it’s a conspiracy… the foreign attacking us ? The foreign hating America ? Impossible. That just doesn’t fit the ethnomasochist propaganda promoted by the mass media.

It can’t be the foreign, it just has to bey Americans. PHEW ! We were lucky, for a little while we were about to admit that foreigners could cause harm to the USA… unimaginable ! And utterly intolerant.

It’s also quite funny to notice that these conspiracy theories only arise when the United States of America are implied.

Why are the no conspiracy theories for the Holocaust for example ? For the Armenian genocide ? For Fukushima ?

Among the 2012 presidential debates that spread quickly and increasingly over this country, quite a few yet not as much as expected concern the economic situation of the United States of America.
Strangely enough, these same economic debates will have been characterized by two essentials elements : the overly pronounced taste for globalism of our candidates and the complete absence of solutions concerning the trade deficit.

For the first one, no real surprise you don’t step out of five decades of blatant ethnomasochism as easily. For the second characteristic on the other hand, even though I half expected it I must say I am nevertheless taken aback by the stupid of those who desire to govern us.

On the economic table,you might have witnessed a few lonely tirades about the public spending, and even less numerous interventions about the unemployment, which Ron Paul blames on the… FED. How original.

I truly have a hard time seeing how monetary creation, if that’s what Ron Paul reproaches to the FED in the first place, leads to unemployment since on the contrary, in the short term monetary creation will bring devaluation of the currency, and lead to more exports. It’s only in the long term that monetary creation can show its perverse effects, more on that later.

But aside from Ron Paul’s usual ramble, very few mentions to our current economic situation have been noticeable, like for example our record high trade deficit. It’s also funny to notice that we barely use the term “trade balance” anymore, only “trade deficit” implying that our balance couldn’t be positive.

Only once again, and if you dispose of whatever political experience or plainly common sense you may already have noticed, purposely ignoring an issue won’t make it fix itself. We’ve had proof for the public debt, the ethnomasochism, the anti-Americanism and countless other political experiments.

The truth about the trade deficit in America

Every candidate talks openly about such concepts as wealth redistribution and common wealth, but what they seemingly fail to notice is that to have any wealth to distribute you have to produce it first. And as we fail to produce any wealth, actually we lose some each day hence the term trade deficit, our economic system is only feeding on a smaller and smaller piece of cake : our past gains.

The only companies actually bringing money into the USA are the very old ones, often times the ones labelled as corporations by the mass media, and they are also believe or not the most taxed entities in this country.

But taxing our big companies is not and was never enough for our economic system not to collapse under the weight of the drag that is our American Business Model.

To substitute to our nonexistent and even hugely deficient production of wealth, there are three solutions.
1. Tax money
2. Print money
3. Borrow money

Needless to say that our government is applying all three of these, and rather ineffectively.

But don’t forget that Americans are sheep, and whole common wealth system is designed against them. In the long run that is.

The system is designed by essence for the supply to meet the demand by all needs necessary, disregarding our sovereignty and our long term national interests (the liberals always talk about collective interest, but what is more collective than our own nation I demand).

Americans are such sheep that as long as the supply meets the demand, or in this case the demands, they won’t protest. They all want the “miracle pill” to solve all our problems, and that’s exactly why charlatans such as Ron Paul can rise effortlessly on top of all political polls.
Americans aren’t lucid at all when it comes to political and economical decisions, and these democratic debates often turn out to be one way overbidding schemes.

– We aren’t producing enough wealth and bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just tax the rich and the companies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

– We can’t tax the rich anymore but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just borrow our money with massive interest rates from other countries, most of which openly consider themselves our enemies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

– We can’t borrow anymore money but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just print more money disregarding the issues linked to devaluation. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

The candidate Ron Paul and several other conservatives have strongly opposed the concept of monetary creation, at least indirectly, and the “FED system”. Unsurprisingly, none of them has ever brought up the consequences of ending a system on which our whole economy is now dependent.

And for once in the history of the United States of Demagogy, there is a possibility that the supply won’t meet the demand, simply because there is no more supply. There are no more fake issues, “miracle pills”, Jesus-is-our-savior-he-will-fix-our-economy-vote-Santorum-2012, nonviable settlements, wrong answers and non-solutions to disconnect the American people from the market.
Our politicians believed they could just ignore the reality of economic war and the market altogether, but they are only just starting to see the consequences of fifty decades of internationalism and ethnomasochism.

Surely many Americans are the biggest sheep in the world, and even more surely these same Americans will pay the price for this naivety in a very near future. Unfortunately, many not-so-sheep Americans will also have to pay the same price. That’s the beauty of collective irresponsibility.

I don’t know if you watched Ron Paul’s speech to a Town Hall meeting in Maryland, but it’s very revealing concerning his ambitions as a president.
A very interesting segment was when he said that we should all unite under our love for liberty and forget communities and differences. Replace liberty with equality and you have the exact same speech as Lenin. Anationalism in other words.

It’s funny how the globalists are always demanding for sacrifices in the name of a “greater good”, such as globalism, freedom. But what they won’t tell you and Americans won’t seem to realize is that it’s always the same that are performing these sacrifices (Americans) and the same that are on the receiving end (the foreign).

You don’t see such speeches in the European elections for example. No candidate would dare put a “greater good” above national interests. But Americans don’t seem to notice anything happening outside their borders.

You may see a lot of foreign support for Ron Paul as I previously evoked on this blog, but does that mean they like his ideas ? Or just that they want him in the White House ?

Notice that far from being ashamed of this foreign support, Ron Paul actually praises it on any possible occasion. It seems he accords even more value to foreign support than national support, which says long about a candidate to the United States presidency.

If Americans weren’t so much following the sheep mentality and mindless group-think they’d start to look a little closer at the foreign governments, and start to notice some incoherence.

For example, just look at how much support Ron Paul received from France or Russia. But who are their presidents ? Libertarians or nationalists ? This applies for any other country in the world, India, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic.

Look at the polls, look at their candidates, look at their senates, look at their propositions, look at their political programs ? Do they even have a libertarian candidate ? In most cases no, and if they do it’s far from being the globalist ethnomasochist hippie-fest that Ron Paul promulgates, and a lot closer to nationalism coupled with classical liberalism.

If Americans weren’t such sheep, they’d notice that far from wanting more libertarianism for their countries, they just want Ron Paul elected as president of the United States.

But unfortunately, Americans are sheep and will suffer the consequences. Too bad. But kinda funny at the same time.
Be prepared for more OWS crap in the near future, and don’t forget the popcorn (one of the rare vestige of American gastronomy that has survived decades of global imperialism and ethnomasochism).